Evaluating image captions requires cohesive assessment of both visual semantics and language pragmatics, which is often not entirely captured by most metrics. As such metrics increasingly guide model development, benchmarking, and system optimization in multimodal AI, inaccuracies in evaluation can misrepresent true progress. We introduce Redemption Score(RS), a novel evaluation framework for multi-modal generation by triangulating three complementary signals: (1) Mutual Information Divergence (MID) for global image-text distributional alignment, (2) DINO-based perceptual similarity of cycle-generated images for visual grounding, and (3) LLM Text Embeddings for contextual text similarity against human references. A calibrated fusion of these signals allows RS to offer a more holistic assessment. On the Flickr8k benchmark, RS achieves a Kendall-τ of 58.42, outperforming most prior methods and demonstrating superior correlation with human judgments without requiring task-specific training. Our framework provides a more robust and nuanced evaluation by thoroughly examining both the visual accuracy and text quality together, with consistent performance across Conceptual Captions and MS COCO.
Evaluating image captions without references remains challenging because global embedding similarity often misses fine-grained mismatches such as hallucinated objects, missing attributes, or incorrect relations. We propose MSD-Score, a reference-free metric that models image patch and text token embeddings as von Mises-Fisher mixtures on the unit hypersphere. Instead of treating each modality as a single point, MSD-Score formulates image-text matching as a multi-scale distributional scoring problem. Semantic discrepancies are quantified via a weighted bi-directional KL divergence and combined with global similarity in a multi-scale framework for both single- and multi-candidate evaluations. Extensive experiments show that MSD-Score achieves state-of-the-art correlation with human judgments among reference-free metrics. Beyond accuracy, its probabilistic formulation yields transparent and decomposable diagnostics of local grounding errors, providing a deterministic complementary signal to holistic similarity metrics and judge-based evaluators.
Captions serve as a primary supervision signal for both multimodal understanding and text-to-image generation. However, previous evaluations treat the caption quality as a single scalar objective, which conflates two distinct properties: (1) how much visual information a caption covers and (2) how reliably the image supports its stated claims. To this end, we design a decoupled caption evaluation benchmark, CAPEval (Coverage And Precision Evaluation), with human-written ground-truth captions and human-verified atomic checklist items. Specifically, CAPEval decomposes caption quality into Coverage and Precision. The former quantifies how thoroughly a caption covers ground-truth factual content, while the latter reflects the factual correctness rate of all claims expressed in the caption. We select 10 captioners and further conduct controlled downstream end-to-end experiments with them from four model families, where the caption source is the only variable. Empirically, we find a consistent task-dependent dissociation: Coverage serves as the stronger correlate for understanding performance, whereas Precision acts as the dominant predictor for generation performance. This decoupled evaluation paradigm not only delivers a more fine-grained diagnosis of caption quality, but also offers actionable guidance for selecting and optimizing captioners tailored to different downstream tasks.
Long-text image--text congruence scoring is increasingly important for vision-language systems that must evaluate whether detailed textual descriptions match visual content. However, raw similarity scores from dual-encoder models are difficult to interpret as calibrated congruence measures, especially under the modality gap between image and text embeddings. This paper proposes Congruency Score (CS), a lightweight calibration layer that maps image--text similarity evidence into a bounded score. Using DOCCI and Urban1k, we evaluate four frozen vision-language backbones and show that observed reductions in post-projection centroid distance do not uniformly improve image--text retrieval performance. Human-grounded evaluations on DOCCI further reveal a trade-off: direct post-hoc calibration preserves high association with human judgments, whereas selected projection-based configurations can reduce threshold-relevant slope and intercept distortions at the cost of retrieval performance and association strength. These results establish long-text image--text congruence scoring as a calibrated score-estimation problem, where retrieval performance, human association, and threshold calibration must be evaluated as distinct objectives. CS provides a lightweight way to expose and operationalize this separation.